IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Secdispatch] EDHOC Summary

Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx> Thu, 11 April 2019 19:20 UTC

Return-Path: <rlb@ipv.sx>
X-Original-To: secdispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52FFB12060F for <secdispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 12:20:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ipv-sx.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AGT6BJkZhHAd for <secdispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 12:20:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi1-x22f.google.com (mail-oi1-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4FFBA120604 for <secdispatch@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 12:20:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi1-x22f.google.com with SMTP id t81so5900310oig.10 for <secdispatch@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 12:20:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ipv-sx.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=9E947VIS9N0ApyfqMpLbtz4KgEMQufbGPVKgEAuaWGY=; b=HgzwTUZx4zqIo5DBlHl9VdW20GQ9gyYl19qlv5YgXfh+mUOlpWcuf/pSFYYrMuQE4x RU12ngGt/I3QLmzMxxoySNu83jqsMB+o+5oBlqawc3368NbaYgViwKqEhPgCp3PSgyVu xZosHb7Z+cCKNuaY26NlZJkS/gbaxiRCvQ8gw+py2BwCIZXeikJnlmzpJ3oUqEgRebtZ cWPCE0dwD7WuiTblTZF1ff/3MpXRS3l2FK7CehazuSBRK9c0FM9coDKJoAGaDBGRTXXo E1aa8lo9SWn0Mzx168tvRF8ZBRqLqxJWHlAl6wqv0dsSxWrokfEmn+pH0AMeuwkHm43h LNkg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=9E947VIS9N0ApyfqMpLbtz4KgEMQufbGPVKgEAuaWGY=; b=UZEEHYJATLWq1Y9AvnF5sHD/+weUPwMu/5wE0R39EDRtppaiAA978EoSaesUcnuauF G0763QVyELzueMekvl/5oKLZ2/nrqVWB+NjS8TreEULfJ9gCUsrJhfrbXQ/WhjEg4v77 /4PyC5WfwkQRWsAW1VgnDJp0cx0urjilsv1J8/CsGDgKcHSUU3XbCkyt2bSGe7Ha7TG2 aC61sp5Pzaz5PzEipWKSdh6ZpIomvQJRNene4bY3YO715y5vRy+0pIsczDzNV7OTRWv+ xiX0d7xXnA54w45PAH9aazlDPLim77eXNdwrgtWkH7p9QKzyvwBMR17TyjF8nrC1A48v m5hA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXUegUsb7qjrsu7vswVVtFybetPebUY4VJCwmJwfL4v1IraRFsp wGAboP+Lx5zUtZ9BQ4BocMpyIm9iXqH5wCeAClWGRg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzdrWZXhWvLCEMoXVcnNmCeARxsDeqwn54xtFVfQm3KFFn22n+dTCBvzMG5UNdRBoc7GagseQt8rJ76kzlTwdc=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:544b:: with SMTP id i72mr7032688oib.51.1555010453397; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 12:20:53 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <359EC4B99E040048A7131E0F4E113AFC01B3311A9F@marchand> <012a4798-fc70-4b5d-b0da-373221c95d38@www.fastmail.com> <721B6044-8DA1-4173-BE73-87D37136DFEE@ericsson.com> <8e8873a9-2352-40af-8e60-370012393ccc@www.fastmail.com> <F7934212-2785-4D8C-992B-2C0572C2A889@tzi.org> <CAL02cgSr38a+PZu4Ttnr-RuMaTD3kE6ACWJDJjV3+Bgn2NNqAA@mail.gmail.com> <3822.1555010100@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <3822.1555010100@localhost>
From: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2019 15:20:35 -0400
Message-ID: <CAL02cgTdKOEQEbPb+=GJKyMBJQqgPfhuvn-3Bs58DdGYLOALTQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Cc: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, "secdispatch@ietf.org" <secdispatch@ietf.org>, Göran Selander <goran.selander@ericsson.com>, Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b27e70058646155a"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdispatch/W0VJCK-6X3tE7wspP8rvD-sowdQ>
Subject: Re: [Secdispatch] EDHOC Summary
X-BeenThere: secdispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Dispatch <secdispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/secdispatch>, <mailto:secdispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/secdispatch/>
List-Post: <mailto:secdispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdispatch>, <mailto:secdispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2019 19:20:57 -0000

On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 3:15 PM Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
wrote:

>
> Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx> wrote:
>     > I'd like to push back on this point. It may be that EDHOC has been
> around for
>     > a while and been well-socialized with the IoT crowd, but it is
> clearly
>     > deficient in several other types of maturity, e.g., robustness of
> formal
>     > analyses and state of implementations (AFAICT).
>
> I want to be sure that I understand you.
>
> Is it your opinion tha the IETF can not form a WG until after a protocol
> has
> had formal analysis?  How many analysis?  How many years?  Which
> publications?
>

I didn't mean anything w.r.t. the formation of a WG.  Carsten's implication
seemed to be that an EDHOC WG could deliver more quickly than, e.g., one
using TLS as a starting point.  That's the point I was pushing back on -- I
hope we agree that delivering a final security protocol should be gated on
robust analysis and multiple implementations.

--Richard


>
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
>  -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email